1 Fair Judgment in C.C.No. 02 of 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE AT YELLAREDDY, KAMAREDDY DISTRICT.
Dated this the 27 th day of February, 2026.
Present:- Smt. M. SUSHMA Judicial First Class Magistrate,
YELLAREDDY.
C.C.No. 02 OF 2021
Between :
The State - Rep., through the Sub-Inspector of police, P.S. Yellareddy
…..Complainant
A N D
Raparthi Kashinath, S/o Vittal, Age: 29 yrs., Caste: Munnurkapu, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No. 1-26, Somarpet (v), Yellareddy (M).
….. Accused
This Case is coming before me on 18-02-2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant; and
Sri.N.Srinivas Rao, Advocate for the accused and after perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
: : J U D G M E N T : :
1. Nature of offence :- The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Yellareddy filed charge sheet in Crime No. 117/2020, and Accused was tried for the offence
U/Sec. 420, 379 of Indian Penal Code( in brevity IPC), under the warrant Procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short form Cr.P.C).
2. The brief averments of the prosecution case is that :
The complainant/Sri. Yella Narender Reddy, stated in his complaint that on 11.05.2020, at approximately 11:30 AM, he visited the Andhra
Bank ATM at Yellareddy to withdraw money and being unfamiliar with
ATM operations, he encountered an unknown male person there and requested his assistance in checking his account balance. The complainant 2 Fair Judgment in C.C.No. 02 of 2021 handed his ATM card to the unknown individual and the person took the card, checked the balance, and returned the card to the complainant, claiming that there is no money in his account and gave another ATM card.
On 18.06.2020, needing to withdraw funds, the complainant went to the
ATM accompanied by his son-in-law, Veera Reddy. When Veera Reddy attempted to withdraw money, he noticed that the ATM card in the complainant's possession did not belong to him, but to someone else. Upon checking the transaction messages on his phone, the complainant discovered a notification for a withdrawal made on 03.06.2020, in the amount of Rs. 21,500/- from his account (No. 62119083933). The complainant realized that he had been deceived by the unknown person, who swapped his ATM card and subsequently committed the theft of his money from his bank account. Based on this complaint, LW-09 registered a case under Cr. No. 117/2020 U/s 420 and 379 IPC and has commenced an investigation. During the course of investigation, Lw-9 examined the complainant and recorded his statement. Later he proceeded to the scene of offence ie., Andhra Bank ATM, Yellareddy and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of panchas i.e., Pw.4 and Pw.5 and drew rough sketch in CDF. On 2.12.2020, while conducting surveillance, police observed a man acting suspiciously. He was apprehended and identified as Raparthi Kashinath (29), an agriculturist from Somarpet and he was brought to Yellareddy P.S. Upon interrogation, Kashinath confessed to the crime, explaining that he had turned to theft to pay off debts of
Rs.90,000/- incurred to go to Dubai for his livelihood and debt of
Rs.2,80,000/- incurred for his marriage expenses. He admitted to using the complainant’s card to withdraw Rs. 75,000/-, of which he had spent
Rs. 20,000/- on personal needs and remaining amount kept in his house.
3 Fair Judgment in C.C.No. 02 of 2021
Following the confession, the investigating officer (LW-9) recovered a total sum of Rs. 1,44,000/- from the accused’s residence, which included
Rs. 15,000/- belonging to this specific case. Although initially served a notice under Section 41(a) Cr.P.C. to produce sureties, the accused failed to comply. Consequently, on 7.12.2020, he was arrested at his home and brought to the PS Yellareddy. After a medical examination at the
Government Hospital, he was sent to judicial remand, and the recovered cash was deposited with the court on 18.12.2020 Vide C.P.R.No. 01/2021.
Lw-10 took up further investigation from Lw-9. After completion of the investigation LW-10 filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under
Section 379, 420 IPC. Hence, the charge sheet.
3. Cognizance :- After perusing the record, cognizance is taken by my predecessor for the offence U/Sec. 379, 420 IPC, against the accused.
Summons were issued to secure the presence of the accused before the
Court.
4. COMPLIANCE OF PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS :- Upon appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
5.The Accused was examined under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure
Code by explaining the substance of accusation in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and hence charge was framed under Section 240
Criminal Procedure Code for the offence under Section 379, 420 IPC which was explained to him and having understood, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4 Fair Judgment in C.C.No. 02 of 2021
6.Trial :- In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-6 and got marked Ex P-1 to P-6. The details of the documents marked are mentioned in the appendix of evidence. Further, the prosecution gave up the evidence of LW-02/Sri.
Yella Saireddy, LW-03/ Sri. Yella Vinod Reddy, LW-04/ Sri. Chennamgari
Srinivas Reddy, LW-10/Sri. P. Madhusudhan Reddy. Therefore their evidences are closed.
7. Sec.313 Cr.P.C examination:- After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313(1) (b) of Cr.P.C on the incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses and the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence defence evidence was closed.
8. Heard the learned A.P.P., for the prosecution and the learned counsel
for accused. Perused the material on record.
9. Now the point for consideration is “whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 379,
420 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt” ?
10.EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION:- P.W.1 is examined by the prosecution to speak about Ex.P1 report. P.W.4, P.W.5 are examined by the prosecution to speak about their presence at the time of inspecting the scene of offence by P.W.6. The witnesses P.W.2, Pw.3 are examined by the prosecution to speak about their presence at the time of recording confessional statement of Accused. P.W.6 is examined to speak about 5 Fair Judgment in C.C.No. 02 of 2021 registering of F.I.R., and investigation done by her and about the filing of the chargesheet before the court. So by considering all these facts and circumstances, the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under sections 420, 379 of I.P.C as such the accused is liable to be punished in accordance with law.
11.On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused argued that the accused is nothing to do with the alleged offence and that the PW.6 falsely implicated him and that whatever the alleged arrest and seizure made by PW6 which was not proved by the evidence of Pws 1 to 5 and did not support to the version of PW6. So that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged seizure and arrest of the accused by PW6 and that that the evidence of Pws 1 to 5 has shaken many infirmities during the cross examination. Thus, there is no iota of evidence placed before the court to show that the accused committed theft and cheating by deceitfully swapping the complainant’s ATM card and withdrawing Rs.21,500/- without authorization. So that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec. 420, 379 of IPC as such accused is entitled to be acquittal.
12.Upon perusing the submission of both parties and material available on record, the heavy burden lies upon the prosecution to prove that
Accused has not committed theft of Rs.21,500/- by swapping the ATM card. In order to substantiate the said fact it is the evidence of P.W1, who deposed that in the year 2020 on one day in the morning hours he went to
Andhra Bank ATM situated at Yellareddy and at that time one person was present in the ATM center and he requested him to withdraw money from the ATM machine since he do not know how to withdraw amount from 6 Fair Judgment in C.C.No. 02 of 2021
ATM machine. Then he handed over his ATM card to that person and disclosed ATM pin code. Later that person informed him that there was insufficient balance in his account and returned back ATM card. After one week of the incident he gave his ATM card to my son in law/ Veera Reddy for withdrawal of money. Later he informed that the ATM card which was given to him was not his. Later he went to the SBI, Yellareddy and informed the same to the Manager of the bank. After verifying his account he informed about Rs. 21,500/- was withdrawn by that unknown person and the card given to him not belongs to him. Later he went to the P.S.
and lodged report. He further testified that he cannot identify the said person since lapse of time. Police examined and recorded his statement.
During cross-examiantion he testified that he don’t know the details of the person who handed over his ATM card at the ATM centre.
13.The evidence of mediators to scene of offence panchanama of accused i.e. Pw-4, Pw-5 goes to show that about 5 years ago, on one day when they were at the Andhra Bank ATM centre,yellareddy and that police came over there and took their signatures on scribed papers. However, stated that they don’t know it’s contents.
14.The evidence of mediators to confession and seizure panchnama of accused i.e. PW.2 and PW.3 goes to show that in the year 2020 on one day on the instructions of their Tahsildar, Yellareddy they went to P.S.
Yellareddy in the afternoon hours and on the request of police they signed on typed papers. However, they do not know its contents. At the instance of learned APP, PW-2, Pw-3 were declared as hostile witness and the learned APP was permitted to cross examine the witness. During cross- examination by the learned APP, Pw-2 , Pw-3 denied the suggestion that 7 Fair Judgment in C.C.No. 02 of 2021 police conducted confession cum recovery panchanama of accused in the
P.S Yellareddy and that police seized Rs.1,44,000/- cash from the possession of the accused out of which Rs.15,000/- cash pertains to this case.
15.Further, the evidence of investigating officer PW.6 shows that she proceeded to the scene of offence at Andhra Bank ATM, Yellareddy and in the presence of two mediators i.e., Pws 4 & 5 conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch in the CDF. Further on 02-12-2020 at 1100 hours she apprehended the accused and brought him to Yellareddy
P.S. and he confessed his guilt. She further deposed that she conducted confession and recovery panchanama in the presence of Pws 2 & 3 and seized an amount of Rs. 1,44,000/- from the house of accused and out of the total amount of Rs. 1,44,000/-, Rs. 15,000/- pertains to this case. The accused failed to comply 41 (A) Cr.P.C. that was issued to him on 02-12- 2020 and accordingly he was arrested on 07-12-2020. On 20-12-2020 Lw- 10 took up the further investigation and he deposited the case property of
Rs. 9,000/ - before the Court vide CPR No. 01 of 2021, Dt: 05.01.2021.
After completion of the investigation Lw-10 filed the charge sheet before the court.
16.Upon perusal of depositions of witnesses and exhibits marked and after going through entire record, I found that there are no direct eye witnesses in this case to say that accused against whom charge is leveled has committed theft of Rs.21,500/- from Andhra Bank ATM, yellareddy by swapping his ATM card with that of Pw-1. The allegation of the prosecution is that accused confessed in presence of mediators about the commission of theft in many cases including the present crime. It is well 8 Fair Judgment in C.C.No. 02 of 2021 settled law that the confession made by accused in the presence of police and while in police custody is hit by Sec. 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act and the same is inadmissible in evidence. Such confession cannot be taken into consideration. Thus, in absence of any eye-witness to the offence committed by accused, I am constrained to hold that prosecution failed to establish guilt of accused for offence under section 420, 379 IPC.
17.Furthermore, the case of the prosecution is that the police seized
Rs.1,44,000/- cash and out of it Rs.15,000/- is the case property in this case from the possession of accused in presence of mediators. However,
P.W.4 and P.W.5 who are ranked as mediators and alleged to be present at the scene at the time of preparing mediators report, turned against the prosecution. Moreover, the evidence of mediators to confessional panchnama i.e. PW.2 and PW.3 shows that no property was seized from the possession of accused. Further, they stated that police took their signatures on typed paper and they did not know the contents of such papers. Except the oral testimony of P.W.6 who is police official, there is nothing on record to prove that in fact the police officials seized
Rs.1,44,000/- cash from the accused in continuation to the discovery of fact. Thus, recovery of stolen cash from possession of accused through discovery of information could not be established as required under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, considering the hostile testimonies of mediators, this court is not inclined to place any reliance on the interested testimony of the police official P.W.6 as it does not inspire any confidence in the mind of the court with regard to the truthfulness of the prosecution case. Hence, the point is answered against the prosecution.
9 Fair Judgment in C.C.No. 02 of 2021
18.Therefore, I hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused, beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence under section 420, 379 IPC. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal.
19. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 420, 379 IPC and he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of judgment as contemplated U/Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C.
16.The case property deposited in court vide C.P.R.No. 01 of 2021 given for interim custody to Pw-1 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal period.
Typed to dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court on this 27 th day of February, 2026.
Sd/-
Junior Civil Judge-cum-
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Yellareddy.
10 Fair Judgment in C.C.No. 02 of 2021
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For prosecution: For Defence:
P.W.1Y. Narendhar Reddy.
P.W.2Rajalingu Vinod Kumar.
P.W.3Jalli Nagaraju. None P.W.4D. Laxman.
P.W.5B.Bhasker.
P.W.6K. Swetha.
Exhibits Marked.
For Prosecution: For Defence:
Ex.P1Is the Pw-1 report.
Ex.P2Is the signature of Pw-2 on confession cum recovery panchanama. Ex.P3Is the signature of Pw-3 on confession cum recovery panchanama. Ex.P4Is the signature of Pw-4 on CDF. Nil Ex.P5Is the signature of Pw-5 on CDF.
Ex.P6Is the FIR
Ex.P7Is the CDF.
Ex.P8Is the attested copy of confession cum recovery panchanama.
Material objects marked.
Nil
Sd/-
Junior Civil Judge-cum-
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Yellareddy.